Zach,

If you shorties (I'd typically advise you a mountain bike size Small or
Medium, I ride X-Large or XX-Large) are on 192's, by rules of proportion
(194cm dicided by 170cm, multiplied with 192 ski's), for height I'd be
on.....hold on now people...217cm ski's!
And then, I may still have relatively longer legs so I could "handle" even
longer still? This really sucks, I though at first that my body style might
actually be super suited for skate-skiing, and now I hear I may have to do
with ski's 10% shorter than ideal. Exactly as in bikes, until 29" wheels hit
that market and made me from a very so-so technical rider to one that drops
anyone anytimes when it comes to technique.

From your explanation, I get the impression that wider ski's might actually
be just the ticket after all, to make longer ones that are still stiff
enough for heavier/stronger legged athletes. I'm no phisicist, but I would
guess that if you add 10mm to the 40mm width of a ski, that immediately adds
25% of stiffness. Yes, also weight, but not a full 25% of what sits on the
foot (binding, boot, etc). Skiers that can put more pressure on a ski can
also pull on it harder, I would say.

Assuming a whopping 25% wider ski, longer skiers like your friend and myself
might be able to have 220cm ski's (10% longer than his rare Madshus') that
close at appopriate pressure, and with a huge surface area, be it good or
bad for glide. If width is such a small factor in a ski's performance that
it's even disregarded lately, at least it wouldn't kill the advantages of
the perfectly fitting-length and flex of the ski's?

I didn't quite understand your "torque on edge" argument against wider ski's
(language barrier and technically under educated, I'm afraid). And I
appreciate that wider as well as narrower-than-standard have been tried over
the years, and rejected. But wouldn't a couple decades of ski development
have come up with some tricks to make it work in 2006?

I hope you (and others) won't confuse my fresh look at the technical side of
this sport being the total newbie that I am, with being cocky. I get really
cocky, when I actually know what I'm talking about. Not there yet with
ski's, just trying to learn.

Looks like that if I would try biathlon, the extra 4kg of the rifle would
make my future ski's even less desirable. My current 81kg is in pretty bad
shape, I might actually weigh 85kg in true race shape, adding some upper
body muscle this summer rollerskiing. And I actually thought being a strong
guy made it an advantage to carry the same 4kg rifle as people weighing much
less themselves. That would make me 89kg already...

Thanks for your insight.

J

"Zach Caldwell" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Hi Jan - you're definitely not heavy, given your height. But at 81kg
(regardless of height) you're certainly in the category that will be
best served by a full-sized ski. From any manufacturer you'll be on the
stiffest flex category of the longest ski. You won't be looking for the
stiffest pair in that category, by any means. But that's where you
belong.

In general when you get close to 90kg it gets quite difficult to find
an appropriate skate ski for an agressive and technically competent
racer in general inventory. The skis exist, but they're not nearly as
common, and they're on the very outside of the design spec for the
skis. Interestingly nobody makes anything longer than a 195 (Madshus)
for skate skis. That's been the case for several years. Anyway, I had
one 88kg customer this year who wanted four pairs of well matched skate
skis. He's a strong and aggressive skater, and it took me a lot of
tries to find skis for him.

A lot of this depends on what brand and model of skis your're looking
at. A Fischer 610 gets very stiff near the close and can fit a very
broad range of skier weights. I'm 170cm and 65kg and my prefered
Fischer ski is a 192 stiff - the same size you'd be looking for. My
wife is the same height as me (actually, probably a CM or so taller)
and closer to 58kg and she prefers my skis to her own 187s. The skis I
use as test skis are a 96kg factory flex (145% of my body weight).
That's generally a ski fit for somebody closer to 73-75kg, but it's
what I like to ski on. For you I'd want to find something like a
105-110kg ski, depending on a bunch of specifics that aren't important
here. Madshus, on the other hand, makes skis with a very soft and
supple finish. A ski that is well fit for a 75kg guy would be
pretty-much unskiable for me. And my skis would turn inside out under
you. A Madshus (or similar design) has to be fit much more carefully.
But it's also possible to fine-tune the feel and feedback that the
skier will get to a much higher degree. And you'd be on a ski that
closes at something more like 85kg than 105kg.

I have a good friend who helps me grind skis from time to time when I
get very busy, and who is almost exactly your size. Really tall and
skinny with a background as a ski racer and cyclist. We actually found
a couple of old pairs of 200cm Madshus skate skis from Peter Hale - a
long-standing Madshus rep in this country - to set up for him this
year. Then we ran out of snow and never got them onto the grinder. So
next year. Anyway, this guy has been frustrated by the lack of longer
skis on the market. He can find skis that are stiff enough, but it's
difficult, and he feels that he can definitely handle longer ski.

Best of luck getting well set-up. I've never felt it was a great
advantage to be short - but it sure beats being too tall!

Zach